Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:15:17.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Investigation of the Sampling Distributions of Item Discrimination Indices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Frank B. Baker
Frank B. Baker*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The sampling properties of four item discrimination indices (biserial r, Cook’s index B, the U–L 27 per cent index, and Delta P) were investigated in order to ascertain their sampling properties when small samples drawn from actual test data rather than constructed data were employed. The empirical results indicated that the mean index values approximated the population values and that values of the standard deviations computed from large sample formulas were good approximations to the standard deviations of the observed distributions based on samples of size 120 or less. Goodness of fit tests comparing the observed distributions with the corresponding distribution of the product-moment correlation coefficient based upon a bivariate normal population indicated that this correlational model was inappropriate for the data. The lack of adequate mathematical models for the sampling distributions of item discrimination indices suggests that one should avoid indices whose only real reason for existence was the simplification of computational procedures.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 1965 , pp. 165 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © 1965 Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research reported herein was performed pursuant to a contract (OE-2-10-071) with the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

References

Baker, F. B. Univac scientific computer program for test scoring and item analysis. Behav. Sci., 1959, 4, 254–255.Google Scholar
Cook, W. W. The measurement of general spelling ability involving controlled comparisons between techniques. Univ. Iowa Studies in Educ., 1932, VI, No. 6.Google Scholar
David, F. N. Tables of the ordinates and probability integral of the distribution of the correlation coefficient in small samples, Cambridge, Eng.: Univ. Press, 1938.Google Scholar
Fan, C. T. Item analysis table, Princeton, N. J.: Educ. Test. Serv., 1952.Google Scholar
Fan, C. T. Note on construction of an item analysis table for the high-low 27% group method. Psychometrika, 1954, 19, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldt, L. S. Note on the use of extreme criterion groups in item discrimination analysis. Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, G. A. Item selection by the constant process. Psychometrika, 1942, 7, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. The application of probit analysis to the results on mental tests. Psychometrika, 1944, 19, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, J. C. General considerations in the selection of test items and a short method of estimating the product moment coefficient from data at the tails of the distribution. J. educ. Psychol., 1939, 30, 674–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, J. C. The effectiveness of short methods of calculating the correlation co-efficient. Psychol. Bull., 1952, 49, 342–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, H. M. An application of the Ferguson method of computing item conformity and person conformity. J. exp. Educ., 1954, 22, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garwood, F. The application of maximum likelihood to dosage-mortality curves. Biometrika, 1941, 32, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. Theory of mental tests, New York: Wiley, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A. P. Notes on a suggested index of item validity. J. educ. Psychol., 1951, 42, 499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, D. N. On problems connected with item selection and test construction. Roy. soc. Edinburgh Proc., 1943, 61A, 273–287.Google Scholar
Long, J. A. and Sandiford, P. The validation of test items. Bulletin No. 3, Dept. Educ. Res. Toronto, Canada: Univ. Toronto Press, 1935.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. Biserial estimates of correlation. Psychometrika, 1963, 28, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, W. J. and Dunlap, J. W. A graphical method of computing the standard error of biserial r. J. exp. Educ., 1934, 2, 274–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosteller, F. On some useful “inefficient” statistics. Ann. math. Statist., 1946, 17, 377–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, K. Tables for statisticians and biometricians, Part II (1st ed.), Cambridge, Eng.: Univ. Press, 1931.Google Scholar